RAJEEV KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. MUKUL GARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff against the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as "CPC" for short) for amendment in the plaint seeking insertion of new para 9(a) in the plaint in Civil Suit No. 159/1 of 2013/11, titled as Rajeev Kumar Singhal Vs. Mukul Garg.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

(3.) It is undisputed fact that petitioner/plaintiff along with performa respondents, being siblings of deceased Hari Saran S/o Krishan Chand S/o Kanshi Ram and defendant No. 2, being son of Sadhu Ram, S/o Kanshi Ram had inherited the suit property i.e. House situated on land comprising Khata No. 19/Khatauni No. 35, Khasra No. 982 measuring 105.82 Sq. meters situated at Hindu Ashram Road Mohal Naya Bazar, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., initially owned and possessed by their common ancestor Kanshi Ram . Defendant No. 2 had sold his share (half of suit property) to defendant No. 1 on 7.4.2010 vide registered sale deed No. 302 of 2010. Thereafter petitioner/plaintiff along with performa respondent No. 5/co-plaintiff Naveen Kumar had preferred civil suit (present matter) against defendants No. 1 and 2. However, during pendency of suit, defendant No. 1 had further sold his half share to defendants No. 3 and 4 on 30.3.2013 vide registered sale deed No. 253 of 2013, whereupon defendants No. 3 and 4 were also added as defendants and suitable amendment in the suit was carried out and finally a suit seeking declaration that sale deed No. 302 of 2010 dated 7.4.2010 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 and sale deed No. 253 of 2013, dated 30.3.2013, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 are contrary to law and does not affect the preferential rights of plaintiffs and performa defendants and defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 are not entitled for joint possession or joint user of the common undivided family property in the shape of dwelling house of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to cause interference in possession of plaintiffs and performa defendants in the suit property and a relief of mandatory injunction seeking direction to defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 to execute the sale deed of half share in favour of plaintiff and performa defendants after receiving sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- is pending adjudication before the trial Court.